The issue is not the blocked nominations; it is the manner in which the nominations are being blocked. Filibustering judicial up or down votes creates a quandary. The constitution only calls for a majority senate vote (51 of the 100) for judicial approval (votes that are there for the nominees), but it takes a supermajority (60 of the 100) to end the filibuster. Using the filibuster threat in this manner changes the requirements outside of parliamentary procedure and sets a precedent that not only is changing the way judicial nominees are approved, but any vote/decision that only requires a majority.

The Washington Post, quoting "high placed unnamed sources", reports that there were lots of makeout contests.

Also, there was an epic "7 minutes in heaven" game, with the Speaker of the House being god. After that got old, the Ds and Rs dared eachother to turn the lights off in the bathroom and shout "Bloody Mary" three times. Then, they went out and egged the neighbor's house.


*god i miss adolescent sleepovers*

Can someone tell me one good thing Republicans have done within the last 5 years?

Anything at all?

(And I don't mean insane debt, warmongering and hypocrisy)

EyeballKid

And remember, as always, if enough terrorists are killed and/or captured

Events like 911 will never happen again.

beeferoni - I'm not clear...are you taking issue with the numbers I reported, or are you just using the numbers to make a statement? If so, thank you, that's why I posted them.

I'm trying to establish if the "by Roark's count" line is meant as flamebait, or if you're merely citing the source of the numbers.

Ade

Can someone tell me one good thing Republicans have done within the last 5 years?

Depends on your point of view, but I'd say cutting taxes for EVERYONE who pays taxes was good.

Standing in the Oval Office with three women whose nominations have been stalled, Bush launched his broadside...

This is where I stopped reading and started taking things way out of context.

Huskadoodle writes:

The issue is not the blocked nominations; it is the manner in which the nominations are being blocked. Filibustering judicial up or down votes creates a quandary. The constitution only calls for a majority senate vote (51 of the 100) for judicial approval (votes that are there for the nominees), but it takes a supermajority (60 of the 100) to end the filibuster. Using the filibuster threat in this manner changes the requirements outside of parliamentary procedure and sets a precedent that not only is changing the way judicial nominees are approved, but any vote/decision that only requires a majority.

Not so fast. The Constitution does not say that judges should only get a majority vote. I quote Art. II, Sec. 2:

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, providing two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of teh United States...

In the Treaty context, the Constitution sets out a vote standard - 2/3 - that needs to be reached. On the others, the Constitution remains silent, simply saying that the President can nominate with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Well advice and consent could mean a majority vote, but it also means that things have to proceed by way of the Senate rules. The Constitution does not proscribe a method by which the Senate has to consider these appointments. There is nothing that requires them to come to the floor for a vote immediately. Rather, the silence of the Constitution on that matter leaves it to the Senate to set up a mechanism.

And that's what the Senate has done. They have set up a mechanism of sending nominees to the Judiciary Committee for hearings and approval, and then to the full floor. And they've got Rule 22 which allows for a filibuster of any vote that can only be cut off by a cloture vote of 60%.

What the Democrats are doing is not unconstitutional, despite the yelling and screaming of the Republicans. If it is unconstitutional, then so is the refusal of the Republican majority to bring Clinton's nominees to a vote. They used the Senate's rules to thrwart the Constitution there, too?

Nightsweat

Dish

I hope that was sarcasm.

So much I gagged on it.

beeferoni - I'm not clear...are you taking issue with the numbers I reported, or are you just using the numbers to make a statement? If so, thank you, that's why I posted them.

I'm trying to establish if the "by Roark's count" line is meant as flamebait, or if you're merely citing the source of the numbers.

Roark, I've got no beef with your numbers. But because you didn't list a cite and I haven't done my own research this morning on the topic, I'm just going to cite your numbers.

Having said that, look correct based on previous reporting on the issue. Thanks for posting them.

There's a small difference here, folks.

When the Republicans didn't confirm Billy's nominees, they controlled the Senate and were well within their constitutional powers of "advice and consent" of the Senate to not do so. They didn't "block" the nominations, they simply sent them to the floor and voted them down.

The Democrats aren't voting down Bush's nominations because they're too few in number to do that. Instead, they're endlessly stalling on even allowing the Senators to vote on their nominations because they know they'll lose the vote.

Does "He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ... shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States" mean that some - a minority of - Senators ought to prevent the full Senate from weighing in with their "advice and consent"?

Dish

Phew. Sometimes I don't know with some of the posters here.

When the Republicans didn't confirm Billy's nominees, they controlled the Senate and were well within their constitutional powers of "advice and consent" of the Senate to not do so. They didn't "block" the nominations, they simply sent them to the floor and voted them down.

Sorry, PeaSouper, but you're wrong. Only 1 Clinton judge was ever voted down on the floor of the Senate. The others never even got a hearing or vote in the Judiciary Committee.

PeaSouper

Actually, the majority of the Clinton nominees were blue slipped, wherby a senator can hold up a nominee and prevent his/her nomination from getting out of committee.

A previous poster had it right. The Republicans held up nominees via a secretive process while the Dems do it fron of god and everyone.

Is that the same David Horowitz who was the consumer products guy that would appear on Dick Cavett show with the stupid products?

I don't know. But Horowitz's website is http://www.frontpagemag.com/ (Sorry about lack of html skills. I still haven't figured out linkage.).

Son of Thunder

It is. He went a little nuts after being taken hostage on the air by a radical.

If the Democrats don't want to confirm these nominees, they don't have to. There's no requirement for that. Would it be better for the weakining party of they just rolled over (yet again) and gave Bush what he was whining for?
For chrissakes, they have to take a stand SOME TIME!

Sorry, PeaSouper, but you're wrong. Only 1 Clinton judge was ever voted down on the floor of the Senate. The others never even got a hearing or vote in the Judiciary Committee.

Sorry, excuse my error - the Republicans would have had the majority in the Judiciary Committee then, as well. So they voted them down there rather than sending them to the floor where they surely would have been voted down as well.

PeaSouper
Does "He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ... shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States" mean that some - a minority of - Senators ought to prevent the full Senate from weighing in with their "advice and consent"?

If that minority (as in more than two-fifths or two-thirds but not 50%+1) has the power to stop a vote that require more than a quorum, then yes, they are following the Constitution to the letter.

PeaSouper
No. Read this to understand what happened.

They weren't voted down anywhere. They weren't voted on at all.

Sorry, excuse my error - the Republicans would have had the majority in the Judiciary Committee then, as well. So they voted them down there rather than sending them to the floor where they surely would have been voted down as well.

PeaSouper, we don't know that. Perhaps you're right, perhaps they would have been voted down. But we don't know that.

Voting the Clinton judges down would have meant that GOP Senators would have to go back to their states and explain their rationale for voting against the judges. And maybe their explanations wouldn't sit well with voters, and maybe they would lose their jobs.

So they didn't take that route. They chose to block things up in the committee so they would never even have to take a position on the judges. That way, if asked about it in their states, they could just blame the "process", this nameless, faceless force that just clogs everything up. It's truly a gutless way of facing the problem...just refusing to face it.

What the Democrats are doing is very much out in the open. Everyone knows how every Democratic Senator is voting on these filibusters. If the voters of their states don't like it, they can vote them out. But their voters are informed. The GOP never gave their voters that option.

Nightsweat

Dish

Phew. Sometimes I don't know with some of the posters here.

I hear you on that one.

beeferoni

I should have written, "The constitution does not require the supermajority."

I was not trying to question the constitutionality of the filibuster procedure, just attempting to point out the quandary (however lamely). The GOP has an out. The Senate could simply change the rule. There may exist a majority in the Senate in favor of altering both the rule about rule changes, and the cloture rule, to make filibusters in judicial nominations less easy. If this working Senate majority is able to change the filibuster rules to bring nominations to the floor of the Senate, then likely all of the President's judicial nominations will pass, and the federal judiciary will be changed. However, this would be unprecedented, and would affect future senates in which the roles are possibly reversed.

I kind of like a congress that accomplishes nothing. It costs me no more tomorrow than it already has today :^)

BritneysSpeculum

I actually think a lot of people oppose the policies I think are sensible because they've been lied to. That's why I didn't call PeaSouper any names or acccuse him of being a Bush mouthpiece.

I think if most people are informed, they'll make the right decision. The problem is the media and the opposition lie and distort to play on people's fears and hatreds.

I'd rather present the facts to PeaSouper and others and let him/her make up his/her own mind. I've changed my mind in the past about issues. I like to think everyone can when given the facts.

It's very likely knowing how the Clinton nominees were abused won't change his/her mind right away or possibly ever. But it's also possible it'll add to the weight on the other side of the scale.

In any case, I'd like to get back to civility. I'd also like to learn how to type, but that ain't happening anytime soon...

BritneysSpeculum

I sympathize, believe me. Maybe it's just easier if we go Buddhist - "life is suffering" and all that...

The Senate could simply change the rule.

Huskadoodle, agreed, but unlikely. Changing a Senate rule requires a 2/3 vote, an even higher burden than the one the GOP currently can't get over.

There is another alternative, referred to as the "nuclear option", where the majority leader would call for a vote on the nominee, the Democrats would filibuster, the majority leader would appeal to the chair for a ruling on whether the filibuster was allowed within the Rules, and then the chair (who would be a Republican) would ask the Parliamentarian (who was appointed by a Republican). The Parliamentarian would then rule that the filibuster was out of order, and the vote would proceed.

This is called the "nuclear option" because it would effectively end the filibuster forever on all issues. And the GOP is reluctant to use it because it means that when they are ever in the minority again, they will not be able to use the best tool in the Congress to slow the progress of the majority. So they have to ask themselves...is Charles Pickering worth ending the filibuster forever? So far, the answer has been no.

first, from a posted salon article, the blue slips were legal.

secondly, thank God bush isn't anywhere near the image the hate-mongering communists here would have you believe. comparing bush to stalin and hitler is not only displays the horrible ignorance of the poster, but disrespectful of the HUNDRED OF MILLIONS they killed.

say what you want about us republicans, but you don't see pictures of 'hitler clinton' being posted.

Im not sure that the Dems do it in front of god and everyone and that the Reps did it behind closed doors comparison holds water. The manner used to block past and present votes were both done as part of normal Senate procedure. The procedures used were not secretive when the Reps blocked Clinton appointees, there was just less attention paid to it. The above argument makes it sound as if things were done in closed committees behind veils of secrecy. I do not believe that is true.

A theory I have heard declares that the GOP and conservative supporters have purposely exposed what is happening to expose how the Democrats are voting/not voting in hopes that it will create rancor among constituents in the GOP favor.

Depends on your point of view, but I'd say cutting taxes for EVERYONE who pays taxes was good.

Aside from the fact that this is only technically correct (the vast majority of us get token amounts), I offer three words in reply:

Alternative Minimum Tax

Come back and let's talk in 2005 when Bush's "Tax Cut" actually raises taxes on the middle class.

*QUANDRY

Awesome. It seems that this is one of the few intelligent debates on Fark. I wish I hadn't missed it.

My friend was there, as he goes to Georgetown. He said it was horrible to listen to Barbara Boxer speak.

a quick recap:

so far the democrats have shot down a Hispanic's chance at a judgeship and now they have their sights set on shooting down a black female's chance at a judgeship. The democrats true colors of being a racist party are finally showing through.

and why are the democrats shooting down these nominations?

because these nominees believe in hard work and accountability, not the democrat's "lets keep building more housing projects and keep the minorities from making it on their own. We need the minority vote so we need to keep having them have to rely on the government to survive" mentality.

Just like the democrats hate Powell, Rice and Judge Thomas because these people are hard working minorities.

And this is why the country continues to vote in Republicans en masse. Democrats need to realize American is spelled AmerICAN, not AmerICAN'T (yes, corny but true). Until then, they will continue on their death spiral to extinction.

Unemployment: down
productivity: up
inflation: none
manufacturing orders: up
Democrat Presidential candidates: clueless
4 more years of GWB: Priceless

Republican's are upset because Bush's judicial nominees are only slightly to the right of Josef Stalin

uhhhm, revscat, where in that article you cited does it mention anything about where GWB's nominees are on the political sprectrum?


Here's a recap on one of GWB's nominees:

Priscilla Richman Owen is currently a Justice on the Supreme Court of Texas. Prior to her election to that court in 1994, she was a partner in the Houston office of Andrews & Kurth L.L.P. where she practiced commercial litigation for seventeen years. She received a bachelor of arts degree, cum laude, from Baylor University, and graduated in the top of her class from Baylor Law School in 1977, receiving a juris doctor, cum laude. She was a member of the Baylor law review.

In private practice, Owen handled a broad range of civil matters at the trial and appellate levels. She was admitted to practice before various state and federal trial courts, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth, Eight, and Eleventh Circuits. She is a member of the American Law Institute, the American Judicature Society, the American Bar Association, and a Fellow of the American and Houston Bar Foundations.

Justice Owen served as the liaison to the Supreme Court of Texas Court-Annexed Mediation Task Force and to statewide committees regarding legal services to the poor and pro bono legal services. She was part of a committee that successfully encouraged the Texas Legislature to enact legislation that has resulted in millions of dollars per year in additional funds for providers of legal services to the poor. Justice Owen also serves as a member of the board of the A.A. White Dispute Resolution Institute and is on the boards of advisors of the Houston and Austin Chapters of the Federalist Society. Owen was instrumental in organizing a group known as Family Law 2000 that seeks to find ways to educate parents about the effect the dissolution of a marriage can have on their children and to lessen the adversarial nature of legal proceedings when a marriage is dissolved.

Justice Owen has been honored as Baylor Young Lawyer of the Year and as a Baylor University Outstanding Young Alumna. Among her community activities, Justice Owen serves on the board of Texas Hearing & Service Dogs. She is a member of St. Barnabas Episcopal Mission in Austin, Texas where she teaches Sunday School and serves as the head of the altar guild.

In her successful re-election bid to the Supreme Court of Texas in 2000, every major newspaper in Texas endorsed Owen.


------

OMIGOD!!!! this person actually has the nerve to teach Sunday School... how dare she???? Time to have a democrat cross burning party, STAT! (oh wait, they're already currently doing that)

As much as the right accuses the left of being crybabes, the Republicans sure are being a bunch of whiny biatches on this one.

So the Democrats won't confirm 4 of the 172 nominated judges? BFD, nominate more moderate candidates next time.

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin provides us with a stirring recitation of Patricia Owen's biography, leaving out only her favorite color and what her pets names were when she was a little girl.

Patricia Owen is being kept off the Court because in her role as a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, she has consistently voted to strike down employee and worker labor law protections, often being the only justice on her court to do so. She has a long streak of judicial activism, or a willingness to use her position as a judge to make or unmake laws she personally doesn't like. In theory, the Republican Party hates judicial activism and constantly complains about it. In reality, they just want people who will do it for them.

One of her fellow Texas Supreme Court justices, Alberto Gonzales (now White House Counsel and widely expected to be named to the Supreme Court if Bush gets a chance) chastized Justice Owen in a 2000 abortion case. Owen had voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, which, as a state supreme court justice, she does not have the power to do. Gonzales called her dissenting opinion "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." (See In re Jane Doe 1 (II), 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000)).

Owen isn't getting on the court because she's a conservative activist who has already tried to use her position on the Texas Supreme Court to remake the law. Bush wants to let her try this for more than just the people of Texas, but also of Louisiana and Mississippi.

What the democrats are doing......

Ah, touche, Cyric-The-All. Well played.

For Stapp's sake JUST VOTE ON THEM ALREADY. YES OR NO.

The 'unprecedented' part isn't that they are holding up the vote, the unprecedented part is that they are forcing a 60/100 majority instead of a 51/100 majority. There are only seven things in the constitution that need a large majority like that, and judicial nominees isn't one of them!

Free Krispy Kremes to the user who can name all 7 cases.